Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
And the balance is way out of whack. Combat Paralysis kills your character, but you can get the same BP from 4 minor allergies that will likely never come up, and even if they do they are not a huge deal.
To that, I say the GM isn't doing his job, as GM approval is explicitly part of character creation. Heck, IIRC, such is specifically warned against in the discussion of the flaw.

Quote Originally Posted by Reluctance View Post
Will the GM force the player to sit out because their character has an obligation? Will they force the table to decide between leaving one guy out or having everybody sit around and do nothing? If either of these is the case, they're being a bad GM. The alternative, though, turns the "flaw" into a piece of roleplay fluff at best. Inconvenient if you happen to get forced into your character's life, but meaningless at the table. (One could argue that having an income that's not reliant on being shot at is a good thing if you get lifeswapped, but that's neither here nor there.)
And they're likewise being a bad GM if they let them take the flaw and never have it matter. A good GM has a balance between "This flaw has a 1 in 3 chance of making you play Nintendo all evening" and "I hope you enjoy your 5k nuyen a month!"

If it doesn't impede your ability when the spotlight is on, it's not a real flaw.
I think this is the essence of the debate. Flaws should not be immaterial... but I don't view it as "bending over backwards" to make them part of the game. Both edges and flaws help to define your character, but they are also part of the GMs job to make them matter. Taking an Edge that never comes up is wasted points; taking a flaw that never comes up is bonus points. And it's up to the GM to make sure, especially in the case of flaws, that they come up.